     Senator (Senator) | Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 03:36 pm 
I just received the cr rpt from CSC and again they don't reflect that the "Discover" account was settled way back in 96. I have the mortgage papers from refinancing the home and letters from Discover to prove that the balance is zero. They claim to have verified the outstanding balance that was written off. The other two reporting agencies have it correct. Under the FCRA, can I demand to know who verified this outstanding balance and ask for their documentation? I think that I have reasonable cause to sue them. This is such a round robin of aggravation. I despise these @#$#%@@. i don't want to give them the paperwork as that just helps them. any suggestions?? |
| Christine Baker (Admin) | Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 04:59 pm
I always felt that the bureaus have to provide HOW they verified.
My opinion: Discover or the CRA (whoever screwed up) should have to pay you for your trouble, having to dispute and then having to locate the paperwork, say $500 or so.
Reality: They won't pay a penny unless you sue.
It is so frustrating. Since you had expenses for the lawyers you hired for your disputes, you should be able to file a Small Claims suit to get the legal fees back.
It would be much more satisfying to sue for and COLLECT compensation for the distress this is causing you. What are your lawyers saying? |
| Senator (Senator) | Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 05:35 pm
The lawyers, when push comes to shove, don't think it is worth pursuing from their perspective--not cost effective for me. I, however, am going to need a shrink and some prozac by the time I get thru with this. I am stumped as to what course to pursue. I don't need the aggravation of small claims yet I am sick of the runaround. I don't believe for a minute that someone verified this. I have the documentation to prove otherwise. But why should I submit the proof for what they cannot prove? It reflects the balance of $xxxx outstanding with an R9 and a charge off when in fact it was settled? Am I being stupid for not supplying them with the info--does it even make a difference with the stupid FICO score? Not from what I have read. My feeling is that they can't verify it and are just jerking me around in order to get the proof they need. Should I send the info or not? Cast your votes. The 900 number is open. |
| G Martin (Frozentundra) | Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 05:39 pm
Under the FCRA as amended you may pursue claims from both the furnisher and the bureau. If you have been denied credit based upon this erroneous report you may be able to collect a 6 figure sum from both parties.
If the furnisher has honestly made an error and you can prove it, then you can collect. Email me privately if you would like a referral.
I am currently pursuing a furnisher and a bureau for something very similar. You can read about my case in this forum under "Minnesota Lawsuit"
Also, if you would like an attorney referral I would be happy to supply one privately. The attorney I am working with only works on a contingency fee basis. No cost to you.
I am not an attorney and do not construe any comments posted here to be legal or professional advice. |
| Christine Baker (Admin) | Tuesday, August 08, 2000 - 09:17 pm
Try that lawyer lead, Senator.
I'll try too, re GTE. Now that they turned my account over to collections, I should really do something about it. |
| Senator (Senator) | Wednesday, August 09, 2000 - 01:37 am
Could that lawyer pursue a class action suit--it's not just money. I want the media talking heads to hurt and destroy these monopolies of disinformation. I will email you privately later to get the referral. I have had enough. It's not money that gets to their hearts, it's publicity and public action. Money only silences those who settle with the @#%$#@%%%. Because under the terms of most settlements, you can't talk. We need people to start getting to these jerks. |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Wednesday, August 09, 2000 - 04:26 am
Personally I just think you should forward the proof to them. I like to make life easy for those people making minimum wage at the CRAs. Why are you so opposed to sending them the proof that the matter has been settled? |
| Senator (Senator) | Wednesday, August 09, 2000 - 07:10 am
because they should delete it since they can't prove it. |
| Christine Baker (Admin) | Wednesday, August 09, 2000 - 09:42 pm
We're not guilty until proven innocent.
Consumers don't have the obligation to keep records, it's up the businesses to do so.
Every time somebody sends in proof, they validate the "guilty until proven innocent" tactics. |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Thursday, August 10, 2000 - 03:48 am
That's like saying imagine you're accused of rape by an estranged ex-girlfriend. It is purely her word against yours. On the other hand at the time of the alleged rape you happened to be meeting with a mortgage broker to discuss your credit.
Would you not bother to mention or give the name of the person you'd been with at the time of the alleged incident because that would be changing our system into a "guilty until proven innocent" system? |
| Frank Hardy (Frank) | Thursday, August 10, 2000 - 05:22 am
Shylock, I have a few questions? Do you work for some credit reporting or collection agency? If one examines your posts, one can see that virtually all your themes are the exact opposite of this forum in nearly every instance. Do you have an agenda vastly different from the majority of folks on this board? Why do you use " anonymous255" as your e-mail address if you truly wish to help and bring forth accurate, timely, and constructive information?
Folks, just as Fair Isaac will go to any length to preserve the status quo and the big three CRAs will falsely maintain inaccurate information; so too will collection agencies infiltrate boards such as this board, and spread false, misleading and disingenuous information. They will misdirect virtually all questions with red herring statements and reverse questioning, in an attempt to muddy the waters of informative discussions.
Shylock, a cursory examination of several of your posts, is just such an endeavor. Senator's original post and question was an excellent one. He brought forth a topic that has happen to many folks on this board. Answers were forthcoming and information about possible attorneys specializing in this area was just around the corner. I am sure that over the next few days' even information about possible class action suits would have been explored. Then along comes Shylock. You redirect the discussion by placing the onerous of proof upon Senator. You incite hostilities in others (based upon the responses by Christine and Senator) that allow you to neutralize the important discussion at hand with post hoc ergo proctor hoc discussions about the criminal justice system and class one felonies like rape.
Folks, most of the information, on this site, is good information. It also gives considerable information that can (and should) be explored by those affected. However, be leery of those that may not have all of your benefit in mind. Those that have another agenda all together! For the most part they can usually be spotted. These are the individuals that usually take the opposite side of the theme of a discussion board. They are the ones that incite arguments about a topic. They usually change the direction of the topic away from solutions. Much of their information is inaccurate and many times it simply does not make common sense. They are often shown to have given wrong information by a wide variety of board members and when confronted they usually fall silent, change topics (or boards) or become enraged and attack blindly.
Once this person is recognized other individuals should completely negate all of what this person regurgitates. In this manner good information can continue to be disseminated among those wishing to change a broken, corrupt and unjust system.
Frank |
| Senator (Senator) | Thursday, August 10, 2000 - 04:04 pm
shylock, your last comment is not focused. the credit reporting agencies are not doing their job. the rape analogy doesn't fly. they are charged under the law to report the information correctly and if they can't do so, it is to be removed. that is the situation. they have been written to over and over and over and over. they are dolts wallowing in minimum wage who don't do their job.it's not my fault and they have my sympathy but they should delete it because it can't be proved that an outstanding amount exists. the computer records aren't there. the law says delete. they are just too lazy to get it correct and I am following the law. they are not. |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Thursday, August 10, 2000 - 04:42 pm
Frank:
Your questions are silly. Haven't you ever read the Merchant of Venice? Why don't you grab the dictionary and look up the word "shylock."
Senator:
You might even be able to go further and argue that credit bureaus should have a cycle-count method of checking their information. Every month by random certain tradelines could be selected by computer for manual checking. In that way even if people weren't aware of negative information on their credit profile they'd automatically end up with it fixed sooner or later. After all if their information is more accurate wouldn't it be more valuable?
Don't hold your breath. |
| Scott (Scott) | Monday, August 14, 2000 - 03:58 pm
shy·lock (shlk)
n.
A ruthless moneylender; a loan shark.
Shylock. The ruthless usurer in Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice.
v. intr. shy·locked, shy·lock·ing, shy·locks.
To lend money at exorbitant interest rates. |
| Don (Don) | Wednesday, August 16, 2000 - 09:20 am
Senator,
My problem was similar. I had a collection item show up for a cc that was included in my BK. I disputed it and it came back verified. I was able to get the phone number of a body at the place. (I was trying to get pre-approval for a mortgage, and was cleaning myself up.) After explaining it to the collection agency and faxing them a copy of my BK paperwork, they agreed to fax all three CBs and have it removed. I waited and then followed up on it. Sure enough, it was removed from 2, but not the 3rd (I honestly don't recall which one anymore). So I disputed it again. Sure enough it came back 'verified'.
I was livid. I called the person at the collection agency, and they told me that they never received a verfication request from the CB. I had them fax me a copy of the fax that they sent the CBs. I next called the CB and who then told me that they never received the original removal fax from the collection agency. So I spoke with a 'supervisor' and faxed the fax to him. Problem was solved. Who was actually lying, we'll never be sure. I'll put my money on the CB.
The gist of it is can you get someone at Dicsover to fax you the documentation that you think you need to prove this, and talk to a specific person at the bureau who will be expecting it? I agree with Christine about you shouldn't have to do everybody else's work for them, but if you want a job done right... |
| Mieko (Mieko) | Wednesday, August 16, 2000 - 09:40 am
It is funny that you all brought this up, I just filed my BNK two days ago. I was told by my attorney that I had to make sure that all collection attempts made by any agencies be listed within my list of creditors because the money owed to the cc's would be included in the bnk but because they had sold the debt to the credit collection agencies I could still be held liable for owing them. I thought that this was way weird and not fair but they told me that was how it worked. So I had to pay them an additional five dollars per every collection paper I could find in addition to five dollars for every originating cc company I originally had the debt with. But from what I have read here I am beginning to believe that was not all together true. |
| Senator (Senator) | Wednesday, August 16, 2000 - 01:15 pm
I don't believe that the advice given by your attorney is correct, however, the best advice is to list any and everyone. Don't be surprised that in between filing and discharge there suddenly appears new items in collection that weren't there prior to filing. I had 3 suddenly appear. I have been successful in having them disappear on one and on the other two am arguing with them. |
| Shylock (Shylock) | Wednesday, August 16, 2000 - 01:27 pm
Definitely you should name anyone and everyone you can think of. |
| Don (Don) | Thursday, August 17, 2000 - 06:07 am
Frankly, I've never had a problem with a debt that wasn't listed in the BK as long as I had never paid anything on it since that time. I send everyone who ask the one-page discharge, and they've always agreed to remove it.
However, listing everything is ironclad. Don't skimp. Save yourself the aggravation Senator and myself have of having to spar with them folk. |
